Scarlet = No More Excuses

[gint12b]

So I just got done watching The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. This film was shot primarliy on the Thomson Viper FilmStream Camera. In case you weren’t aware, the Viper just so happens to have 2/3″ sensor technology, similar to what the proposed Red Scarlet will contain. Now I don’t like getting caught up in all the hype, and I’m all about using the tools sitting right here in front of my face. However, I think we all need to take a step back, a deep breathe, and realize what’s about to take place this year.

For the first time in film HISTORY, prosumers will be able to afford a camera that can achieve the same quality seen in big budget feature films at an AFFORDABLE price. Think about this with me for a second…

 

[Noah Kadner]

Well yeah that and $150 million and Brad Pitt.

Noah

 

[David Mullen ASC]

To be accurate, the Viper has three 2/3" CCD's, not a single one with a Bayer filter (though the fact that the single Scarlet sensor is 3K and not HD will compensate). And the Viper has a unique way of using the whole sensor for a 2.37 image without cropping. And Fincher spent some money putting a lot of footage through John Lowry's de-noising process to give the movie a consistent texture. And he had a great cinematographer, a budget of $150 million, and a schedule of probably over 100 days...

But a lot of "Slumdog Millionaire" was shot with a single 2K 2/3" Bayer sensor camera (the SI2K Mini), which is probably a closer example to what the Scarlet will be like.

I'm not sure that it wasn't until "Benjamin Button" came along that 2/3" photography couldn't be considered "legitimate" until now -- we've already had several major studio features shot on 2/3" cameras, and some beautifully shot independent ones as well.

And right now, you've got a 1/2" camera in the under $10,000 price range, the Sony EX3, that delivers nice pictures. I suspect if you handed that camera to Fincher and Miranda, and a few million dollars, they'd deliver a very nice-looking professional movie...

But of course, an upcoming 2/3" camera for a prosumer price is remarkable. On the other hand, so is a FF35 still camera that shoots 1080P. It's all part of a trend of higher and higher imaging tools for lower prices, which is great. Low budget movies can look better than ever.

 

[gint12b]

Thanks David! I covered almost all of that in the rest of my blog post. Just didn't want to include the whole post here... I am updating the 3 - 2/3" info. Have a great day!

 

[Tom Lowe]

Revenge of the Sith was also shot on a 2/3 camera, and is one of the best-looking 1080p pictures you will ever see. There is no reason, with all other things being equal, that 2/3 vs ____ should hold anyone back. Scarlet will make beautiful 2K moving images in the right hands.

 

[Isaac Brody]

Forgive my ignorance but what exactly is this John Lowry denoising process?

And what are some other movie examples that have this "texture."

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Bigger than "talkies"?

Bigger than "talkies"?

However, I think we all need to take a step back, a deep breathe, and realize what’s about to take place this year.

2009 may be the biggest turning point in Motion production access in the history of the industry, maybe bigger than the introduction of "talkies" since they could still use the B&H 2709 in an "icebox" blimp to shot with, but now all motion picture film cameras will become obsolete since the Scarlet "C mount" will cost less than a few rolls of film and processing, and be able to deliver images at or above Super16-Flat35mm quality.

As to the issue of Millions of dollars in budgets for major studio films, to me many of the CG films have little to offer, and films made with actors much. To each his own, but being able to make something up to theatre standards would be better for the eyes of viewers.

Many filmmakers got their start with 16mm films like,

Chan Is Missing (1982) for Wayne Wang

Following (1998) for Christopher Nolan

Mariachi, El (1992) for Robert Rodriguez

Once you own a Scarlet with "C mount" you can shoot a higher ratio than on 16mm or for sure 35mm and like Stanley Kubrick make 100 takes per shot if you need to. Many low budget films look bad because they are basicly made from what should be outtakes.

I got a change to see a print of Leni Riefenstahl - Das blaue Licht (The Blue Light), 1932, or one of her other mountain films, there was a dispute as to who owned the negative and they kept the good negative, she went back and recut the outtakes to make another printing negative from the outtakes, and it looked like an odd film because of that. Shooting Digital lets you delete the bad takes and work for the one that sings.

What is going to happen to all the 16mm and most of the 35mm film equipment over the next few years, it seems that except for a few collectors much of it wont even be worth its weight as scrap metal. I was looking at an optical printer a while back and the guy told me he was going to send it to the dump if we did not purchase it for almost nothing, if you have been following the prices of 35mm movie cameras you can see them sliding, but they are probably going to go off a cliff soon when you can shoot better images in a better and lower cost workflow for the price of a few rolls of film.

I don't know if I would even want an ARRI 35BL I for $500 any longer, what would the point be in putting more money into film equipment at this point?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

They used it for "Zodiac" as well, but it was developed for film restoration work, which is what Lowry's company primarily does. Apparently it is much more effective but processing-heavy than most denoising solutions.

 

[Tom Lowe]

One thing I wonder is, why would Fincher choose Viper over, say, Genesis?

 

[David Rasberry]

We shouldn't forget the PL mount as an option for Scarlet Cinema. There is some first class super16 glass out there for this mount. Primes and zooms.

 

[jpp]

As to the issue of Millions of dollars in budgets for major studio films, to me many of the CG films have little to offer, and films made with actors much. To each his own, but being able to make something up to theatre standards would be better for the eyes of viewers.

How exactly are you going to come up with a production which satisfies Hollywood theatrical standards, without a sizeable budget and the resources which go with it? It's true that few people actually believe a great camera will compensate for a lousy script or poor performances (at least, they won't admit to such a belief), but the fallacy that a great camera will somehow provide great production values still appears to be alive and well.

BTW, great actors don't come cheap either.... And the films you cite, Chan is Missing, Following and El Mariachi are undistinguished for either production value or performances. They succeeded, but for reasons having little to do with theatrical quality.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Hollywood theatrical standards?

Hollywood theatrical standards?

How exactly are you going to come up with a production which satisfies Hollywood theatrical standards,

... And the films you cite, Chan is Missing, Following and El Mariachi are undistinguished for either production value or performances. They succeeded, but for reasons having little to do with theatrical quality.

Hollywood theatrical standards, and theatrical standards are not quite the same thing, I said nothing about "Hollywood" other than the CG takeover.

Did you see "Misma luna, La (2007) aka Under the Same Moon", it was more worth some of the $11 I have pulled out of my wallet than some "Hollywood" type movies I have seen trailers for.

I cited the 16mm films by those directors since they all got theatrical release and all the directors got big "Hollywood" film deals later. To say that "Following" is not a well made and very good film is disrespectful to the true talent that shows through. Each of those films made in 16mm would have been helped in some way being shot with Scarlet over 16mm I would think, if done well. Scarlet lets low budget filmmakers shoot at a higher ratio, and shooting at a higher ratio is in part the difference between the low budget look and better films since you can concentrate on the performance and not the footage counter. The camera is a window to the actors performance, heavy handed DP work detracts from the "suspension of disbelief", one of the most important goals of filmmaking. A small light quiet digital cinema camera is much better than say a Mitchell Standard or ARRI IIC which make so much noise they scare the actors.

If Scarlet lets someone put the money into actors, sets, locations, food, etc. rather than a film lab it will go much more to making a good film.

It do not think there was much in "Misma luna, La (2007)" that required many millions of dollars, and I know of a production were the actors PAID the production to be in the film, yet non-union, not that they did well since the people doing the films were untalented.

Adrian Alonso gave a great performance and was probably not "above the line".

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1739844/

Your position seems to be like the project greenlight, that there are no talented people outside Hollywood, and those are in a union and can only be had for piles of money.

Well, the films I cited show that is not true, and yes for every 800 films that sundance gets maybe 799 are c**p but 1 might be worth watching. Scarlet will not make a moron into a genus but it might let a genus express himself without being stomped on like the filmmakers in project greenlight who were given amature skripts and shooting schedule that even the best directors in Hollywood could not have turned out anything worth watching under. Even so Shia LaBeouf seems to have come out on the up side from the project greenlight crucible.

My point was, that all things being equal, having a "C mount" 3K Scarlet and good uncompressed DI software like mine, someone COULD make a good looking film with out spending $250000 on 35mm film stock and lab fees, and you cannot do that with existing low priced so called HD cameras. How many people WILL make good films, not box office block busters, will depend on how clever they are, maybe they don't exist, only time will tell. But at lest they will have a better chance, if they do exist, since putting the major share of the money into what goes in front of the camera matters.

 

[Dylan Macleod CSC]

However, I think we all need to take a step back, a deep breathe, and realize what’s about to take place this year.

For the first time in film HISTORY, prosumers will be able to afford a camera that can achieve the same quality seen in big budget feature films at an AFFORDABLE price. Think about this with me for a second…

...and as I exhale from that deep breath, I say...

It takes talent to make good "quality". Regardless of the cost of the equipment that you are using. There are talented directors and DP's who can make better "quality" work with less expensive equipment than someone without talent and unlimited access to the best equipment.

I don't see the revelation?

 

[Dan Hudgins]

revelation?

revelation?

I don't see the revelation?

I think what he is saying is that before there was a hierarchy in at least the quality you could get for a price.

After next year +/- the image quality (on the screen since that is where people see it, out of focus from the projector lens being off or not) from a camera will be much more level, and with digital you can get 65mm film quality at almost no cost for shot length, that lets the filmmaker free himself from the limits of footage cost, and work to use as many takes as it takes to get what he needs, just being able to shoot more takes and of a high enough quality to not have people notice a lower image quality, will be a quantum leap.

If you have low quality in all aspects of your film, that cannot be good, the goal is to bring up each aspect of the project to near normal standards. Good sound is one thing you can do, and Scarlet will be another, as to the others that takes work and luck.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Dan, just having debated this stuff for years on the net with guys who really do not want to see film go away (which is understandable), you really have to go far out of your way to post qualifiers to statements like you are making, which by the way I agree with.

You have to post caveats like, "With all other aspects of the production being equal..." Or "While a new camera clearly will not improve your actors, sets, script, industry connections, etc..." If you leave these things out (and sometimes regardless!), you will be subjected to endless lecturing about how "new cameras will not improve your actors, sets, script, industry connections, etc..."

Anyway, back to the topic, I think one recent indie film that might have benefited from Scarlet was "Once," the story of some struggling musicians in the UK. The acting and music and dialog and everything were great, but the DV picture quality was really shitty. Perfect example of a small picture where image quality hurt the film needlessly.

 

[kidrobot]

The movies I've seen shot with the Viper don't look that good. Good stories though and that helps a lot.

 

[jpp]

Your position seems to be like the project greenlight, that there are no talented people outside Hollywood, and those are in a union and can only be had for piles of money.

Absolutely not! FWIW, my position is just as hopeless -- that without money and resources, there's no way to sustain quality filmmaking -- but that's not the same thing as saying there's no talent outside Hollywood, or that talent is concentrated in Hollywood.

There's no point arguing over the merits of ultra-low budget indies, but the truth is, the films you cite functioned as calling cards. They proved that the filmmakers could make a coherent feature with minimal resources and at least some theatrical characteristics, which opened up other opportunities. That's all to the good, but I doubt very much that anyone watches "Following" or "El Mariachi" for pleasure these days.

As for Tom and the necessary qualifiers -- well, once you add all those qualifiers, there's really nothing to celebrate any longer. Adding resolution, and resolution alone, is fine and well, but resolution doesn't necessarily sell, and it certainly won't redeem American indie film.

My point was, that all things being equal, having a "C mount" 3K Scarlet and good uncompressed DI software like mine, someone COULD make a good looking film with out spending $250000 on 35mm film stock and lab fees

It doesn't cost anywhere near $250K to shoot at a reasonable 35mm ratio, and you could shoot an 80 minute feature at 10:1 for about $20K (stock, lab, video dailies) on wonderful fast S16mm stock. If you want to go into Kubrick-style shooting ratios, then yes, S16mm will bankrupt you. But time isn't free even on low-budget productions.

The point here isn't to quibble, but if these are the cost concerns, you're not going to have a lot for production value and acting even if the camera is free.

If your only point is that a film shot on Scarlet or Red One will look better than exactly the same production shot with a DVX100, then no contest. We can agree.

Anyway, there are still plenty of excuses. Upping resolution alone doesn't answer a million other needs.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

One thing I wonder is, why would Fincher choose Viper over, say, Genesis?

Fincher prefers a file-based recording system rather than HD videotape, though he used the Sony F23 on "Benjamin Button" for some scenes in the hospital room because of fan noise from the Viper.

He probably just used the dual-link HD-SDI out from the F23 and recorded to the same S-Two hard drives he was using for the Viper, rather than use the HDCAM-SR deck (unless he also used that as a back-up) since he likes the whole file-based set-up of random access to takes and ability to automatically slate shots, delete takes, etc.

Now one might ask why he didn't look into using the Arri-D20, for example, or use the Genesis or F23 and skip the HDCAM-SR deck, etc. I'm sure he and Miranda tested a lot of cameras, but you also have to remember that this movie happened right on the heels of the "Zodiac" shoot and it was probably easier to keep the same workflow system with the Viper.

Plus the Viper sensor does have that unique pixel arrangement that allows a 2.37 image to fill a 16x9 1080P signal.

I'm not sure if Grass Valley/Thomson is all that committed to the Viper concept anymore and Fincher may end up moving on to the RED and other data-based cameras.

Most people tell me that the image from the F23 is superior in most ways compared to the Viper anyway, if you are comparing the Viper to other 3-CCD 2/3" options out there, other than this unique 2.37 option that saves having to crop to get scope images.

The Viper does have the advantage of being a fairly compact camera since it has no recording system.

---

As for the debate surrounding lower-cost digital camera technology getting better visually, the unanswerable question is whether better-looking movies are therefore better movies, period. I think it really depends on the movie itself.

It's historically interesting that for awhile, DV was the darling of the indie film movement with a lot of features being released theatrically -- from "The Celebration" on thru "Chuck & Buck", "Personal Velocity", "Dancer in the Dark", "The Idiots", etc. So logically you would have thought that HDV would just replace DV and now you'd see a lot of indie movies shot on HDV in theaters, but for some reason, that didn't happen. It's almost as if the whole indie movement imploded just around the time that better camera technology came along to take advantage of it. HDV instead has become the cost-effective way of shooting HD content for reality television programming, and as a B-camera for bigger HD cameras.

So while now low-budget movies can look better than ever, there is a bigger bottleneck / roadblock than ever to getting them seen theatrically or even in HDTV release.

The sad truth is that if every low and no-budget movie looks fantastic technically, what will separate them in the eyes of distributors? What criteria will they use to separate the wheat from the chaff?

 

[jpp]

The sad truth is that if every low and no-budget movie looks fantastic technically, what will separate them in the eyes of distributors? What criteria will they use to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Probably the same thing that separates them now: novelty, far more than production value, resolution or, in some cases, even the presence of stars. Arthur Miller's daughter may be able to cast her husband, Daniel Day-Lewis, but that doesn't mean anyone will go see the movie, whatever it's shot on (in that case, S16mm, I believe).

To your larger point on the short-lived DV boom, maybe those DV features finally exhausted the appetite for low-budget movie conventions, even if some of the movies, like the Dogme 95 stuff, weren't at all low-budget by American indie standards. Or distributors found out that this stuff rarely makes enough money to be worth the trouble. Also, distribution costs are higher than they used to be.... That alone could explain it.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

It would be interesting to see if Fincher moves onto the F23 on his next film, Michael Mann used to use Viper but not anymore... though he did use some f900 on collateral.